8mp vs 6.3mp (350D vs. 300D)

[morris_jay]

Hello to all,

I am new to the forums and hopefully not repeating past threads.

I put a question to all people out there who have experience with the above cameras (350d and 300d) and printing photographs.

I wish to purchase one of these by Christmas and I'm very much leaning towards the 350d. For various reasons. The only reason I would go the 300d is because its cheaper.

Will the larger pixel count make that much a difference? (in large printing). I wish to take a few photographs and print them at 16x20 or larger as a present for my fathers 50th bday. The picture will be hung from a wall and viewed from a metre or more away.

Cheers
Jeremy

[drisley]

No, it won't make that much difference.
It's the features of the 350D that make it a better buy, not the pixel count.

[morris_jay]

The faster boot up time is a big thing for me. It seems the 350 is made how the 300 should of been.



How large a print can these cameras produce? (that is still good quality for a photo on a wall).

Cheers

[Poco]

16x20 might be a bit much for a 6.3 MP, but I would bet that with some PS magic you could make it work. My quick calc tells me that you will end up with about 150 pixels per inch at 20 inches. I suppose at a couple of meters away you could get away with it.

I would get (and did get) the 350D for the faster startup time, larger memory buffer, and smaller size. It has other features missing from the 300D too, but I'm not exactly sure what they all are since I don't have a 300D.

[Andy_T]

Plus, the low light performance of the 350D is significantly better than that of the 300D ... progress.

Best regards,
Andy

[tim]

I agree with drisley, and the bootup time is a huge advantage of the 350D.

I've printed pics from my old 300D at 20x30 inches, it looks great so long as you stand a meter or so back - and you really have to for a print that big. I'm considering doing a 30*40 inch print soon, just to see how it comes out.

[chris clements]

The difference in the cameras' physical sizes might be a bigger factor in your choice than the marginal difference in image size:- handle them both before you decide.
You may find (as many have) that the 350D is just too small to be comfortable in your hands.

[morris_jay]

I havent held a 350d, but the 300d seemed to big and bulky for me...

[schmoelzel]

Sensor resolving power seems to be much more important than the actuall pixel count......I have regularly made 16 X 20 poster prints in my shop with my 1D and my DRebel before that........they look great and not pixelated at all; the 1D prints actually look better even though it is a 4.3 MP camera............I just printed out a bunch of 11 X 14 size prints and they look amazing!!

[drisley]

I havent held a 350d, but the 300d seemed to big and bulky for me...
Well then, the 350D should be ideal for you. It's the smallest DSLR you can buy.
In fact some people even find the 300D to be too small, and the 350D is even smaller.
If you are worried about the 300D being too bulky, DSLR might not be for you.
A small point and shoot digicam might be better.

[David1943]

You're probably not doing, but I wouldn't put over-emphasis on pixel count to the exclusion of other factors.

You say you want the camera to enable you to take a few large pictures for a specific occasion but you don't say what you intend doing with the camera afterwards. If you intend to resell it, then get the 350D, as it will hold its value better. If on the other hand you want to develop photography further, you really ought to consider such factors as size and weight, as well as what accessories you might use with it. I've never held a 350D but I do wonder if I'd find it too small, especially with my 550EX flash and a long lens mounted on it.

I'm really very happy with my 300D but have decided that when I upgrade, I'll go for a 20D which are now much cheaper than they were and better than either a 300D or 350D.

There really are so many variable issues when buying a camera and you should bear in mind that what is suitable for each of us here may not necessarily suit you.

Happy snapping, David :)

[condyk]

Faced with the same choice and no major budget constraints I opted for the 300D because it feels better in the hand ... objectively, 350D is more suitable for women or small handed blokes :lol: :lol: tho' add a battery grip and it may be better. They weren't around whenh I was looking. 300D with Grip is just perfect for me. Using a 350D with a longer le4ns would be a pain ... literally!

Using the Undutchables firmware on the 300D bridges the software gap for me perfectly well. Look at the facilities it offers over the standard 300D.

The standard facilities extra on the 350D were not that important to me. An extra 1-2 seconds to start up the 300D WOW vital ... not! Just keep the camera turned on for longer! Battery life is verfy good, so why not? The faster burst rate IS useful, but not worth the extra just for that for me.

I think the 350D sits in a strange place now the 20D is better value. I WOULD consider an upgrade to a 20D but the 350D seems like a small camera not worth the extra cash. No axe to grind, just concerned with value and performance rather than latest toy :p better to spend the extra on decent lenses.

Try them both and buy which you like to hold as that will impact the use you make of it. Both will do the job, but do consider the better lens issue. Lenses count a good deal!

[D Boone]

I have the 300D, it will print 16x20's all day long if you upsize them carefully and do not crop much. I have printed many 16x20's and think they look fantastic. A few 20 x 30s.... They look good at arms length but are grainy close up. Even with a bit of grain they still look good.

[Curtis N]

I have the 300D. I've never wished I had more pixels. Frankly you need a darn good lens to really take advantage of that kind of resolution, and I can't afford "L" glass right now. More pixels also means larger files and thus fewer images will fit on a CF card. Sure, you can buy more/larger CF cards but I assume your budget is limited or you wouldn't be asking the question. Spending more on the camera and CF cards means less money available for lenses, flash unit, extra batteries, etc.

The 300D has some missing features which HAVE frustrated me. Mirror Lockup, ability to choose metering mode and flash exposure compensation are among the capabilities I wish I had. Someday I'll get brave enough to install the firmware hack to resolve some of these issues.

I don't know for sure what features the XT has that the original DRebel doesn't. Research carefully and ask lots of questions before you buy.

If I had it all to do over again, I would have bought the XT. But the DRebel is an awesome camera that will give you great images once you learn to work within its limitations.

[Jackal]

Sure the XT is small but with a battery grip it feels alot better. It's also almost $400 cheaper than the 20D according to B&H.

To me I'd rather have a 350D with battery grip and a good lense like the Tamron I have than a 20D with a kit lense =)

Also, one thing I found nifty about the XT's size is that if you stick a 50mm on it and remove the battery grip...it's so damn inconspicuous! You can cover the whole thing with both your hands and you can barely tell you have a camera. (Good for candids and street photography). And it still takes the same quality pictures as the 20D :)

[likophoto]

I tried both cameras and went with the 300D and am happy with the choice. After shooting all day with a heavier L series lens on it, I'm glad I went with bigger size. The bigger size made it easier to get a better grip of it. I can't see myself ever shooting with the XT it is so tiny. As for the boot up times.. I never really noticed it as a problem. I think it boots up plenty fast. I'm pretty happy of the 300D and would get it again if I had the choice between the 300D and the XT. Plus, with the price difference I can add another 50mm prime lens to my collection. I bet you can get a better 16*20 image with a good lens and a 6.3mp sensor than a mediocre lens and an 8mp sensor.

[triangle]

I have a DRebel (300D) and upgraded to the 20D (350D's big brother). I hardly ever use my DRebel now, it is simply a backup camera now. The 20D and 350D have alot of features in common, the 20D has more "pro" quality features that I needed. However, the difference in the 300D and 350D is huge. The speed and ability to shoot in lower light sittuations will give you a better camera for your money.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Get the 350D for all the functional improvements, speed buffer, etc.. not for the 2 MP

[davethefish]

i've just bought my first DSLR, and had to carefully think about how much i needed to spend as it's not my main hobby. and i bounced around the different advantages v's price of the 300D/10D and 350D/20D.

i originally decided to buy the 350D based on its performance on paper,
but after holding it in the shop then being given a 10D to hold, there was no competition, the 10D felt much better to hold, and frankly looked better built.
and as i don't shoot fast (landscapes/nature), i don't need the better buffer or quicker startup time.

so i opted for the 10D as it has a lot of good features, and managed to get one 3months old, boxed in mint condition 2nd hand for £500 inc BG-ED3 grip.
then added an EF - 24-85mm usm lens for £100 2nd hand boxed mint.
so for £100 less than the £699 the shop price for the 350D
i got the 10D with grip and a much better lens than the 18-55mm.
there are a lot of the older 10D's around and can be had for a lot less money if you are working to a tight price point.

[morris_jay]

I will be shooting a lot of outdoors landscape, nature and fishing portraits.

I think I will stick with the 350D, but not for the pixel count.

What sort of lens would suit the sort of photography I am doing. Should I just get a kit lens, or by the body and a lens separate?

If a separate lens is the go, what one will be good enough, but isnt going to cost an arm and a leg?

Thanks heaps for the help guys.

Jeremy

[Poco]

As you can see from my sig I got the EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM instead of the kit lens. It has a good range. I really like taking candid shots with 105mm from a distance. If they don't see you they won't pose for you. I considered the 28-135 IS but it was double the price and I figured I could add more lenses later.

There are a few times I wished I had a slightly wider angle lens and am considering either a zoom or prime, but I don't regret getting the 28-105 as a walk around lens.

[ed rader]

>>Faced with the same choice and no major budget constraints I opted for the 300D because it feels better in the hand ... objectively, 350D is more suitable for women or small handed blokes http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif tho' add a battery grip and it may be better. They weren't around whenh I was looking. 300D with Grip is just perfect for me. Using a 350D with a longer le4ns would be a pain ... literally! <<

i just bought my second 300d because i like the size better and frankly it suits my needs for now and then some. i also use a battery grip and the fit is perfect.

i figure i'll need to go upstream when i do upgrade because i want a full size camera.

ed rader

[davethefish]

as i thinks been said the kit lens isn't terrible, but there are better ones out there,
i went for the 24-85mm usm as in a few tests it has the edge in sharpness, and goes a little wider, it's about £200 in 7dayshop, but can be had for around £100 in mint condition on e-bay.
there is one at £85 with a day left to go at the moment. i allways wait til one within 100miles comes up and collect it, no problems then, as you can test it out;)
here's a good close-up piccy:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davethefish1/Canon%20EF%20Zoom%20Lens%20-%2024-85mm%20f3.5-4.5%20USM.bmp
and review:
http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/24-85